Re: [PATCH 4/4] irqchip: imgpdc: Pass on peripheral mask/unmasks to the parent

[Ed Blake]

On 05/10/17 16:26, James Hogan wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 03:48:53PM +0100, Ed Blake wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure how this is supposed to work, but the issue seems to be
>> that without this patch the parent irq isn't being masked. This is
>> causing the parent handler (MIPS GIC in this case) to be called
>> continuously. This leads to the PDC irq being masked each time, but not
>> the parent irq. This is the callstack:
>>
>> ÂÂÂ "irq-imgpdc.c"::perip_irq_mask
>> ÂÂÂ mask_ack_irq
>> ÂÂÂ handle_level_irq
>> ÂÂÂ generic_handle_irq_desc
>> ÂÂÂ generic_handle_irq
>> ÂÂÂ generic_handle_irq_desc
>> ÂÂÂ generic_handle_irq
>> ÂÂÂ gic_handle_shared_int
>> ÂÂÂ gic_handle_local_int
>> ÂÂÂ "irq-mips-gic.c"::gic_irq_dispatch
>> ÂÂÂ generic_handle_irq_desc
>> ÂÂÂ generic_handle_irq
>> ÂÂÂ do_IRQ
>> ÂÂÂ plat_irq_dispatch()
> Right, yeh it shouldn't technically be masked by the parent (contrary to
> what I said above) because its a chained handler, i.e. as far as the
> kernel knows there could be other IRQs coming through that GIC pin that
> would also get masked.
>
> (though IIRC the perip IRQs can wake, but then they go straight out to
> separate dedicated IRQ pins into the main IRQ chip, i.e. the GIC in this
> case).

That's right, each of the PDC peripherals (RTC, WD, IR) has a dedicated
IRQ to the parent, and the sys wakes are muxed onto a single IRQ.
> I think its worth understanding the root cause here though. Disabling
> routing of an IRQ fundamentally should deassert it. Is it an actual
> hardware bug that has reached silicon?

So you think the PDC->parent IRQ must not be being de-asserted when
IRQ_ROUTE is cleared? I hadn't considered this and thought it was some
persistence in the GIC due to not being masked / ack'd there. Is that
possible? I'll discuss the possible IRQ_ROUTE issue with the hardware team.

Ed.